Buttigieg 2020

[henrygandorf 29225]

22 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

 

 

 

wow, bt's twitter handle outed on surly.  bummer.

[Js1 87175]

29 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

wow, bt's twitter handle outed on surly.  bummer.

Lol I ran into Hugo’s twitter. That was something 

[washparkhorn 9973]

On 12/22/2019 at 8:51 AM, henrygandorf said:

me neither.  do you think pete has a corrupt intent in 2019?

Horrible optics, given the opponent in the general election:

"Warren raised millions through small donors in her 2012 Senate race and set a precedent by rejecting a Super PAC, but she also held big-dollar fundraisers. In 2015 and 2016, despite a high-dollar event or two, Sanders showed that a national campaign could indeed be financed by small dollars. It became clear to Warren that it was not just possible in 2020, but likely a political imperative to do so:

Running in the progressive lane while soliciting major donors would undercut her in the primary. She has since said that she will continue forgoing big donors if she makes it to the general election.

Republicans will have far more resources than Democrats no matter how many wine caves they deign to appear in, but swearing off such fundraisers could have its own electoral advantage, undercutting Trump’s populist appeal by establishing one side as the party of regular people and the other as the party of the rich. You can’t sell that from a wine cave."

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/23/wine-cave-buttigieg-warren/

[bad_teammate 13499]

That's way too coherent for my Twitter

[bad_teammate 13499]

Stupid Human Tricks

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

14 hours ago, Js1 said:

Lol I ran into Hugo’s twitter. That was something 

I’ve had some tweets go viral (100k+ impressions/humble brag).  Only a matter of time before you randomly crossed one. 

[Js1 87175]

[bad_teammate 13499]

Means and Medians

[Bama Chick 28596]

[406W30th 1111]

Mayor Pete: The people who wrote the Constitution didn't know slavery was bad okay?

 

[bad_teammate 13499]

History undergrad at Harvard

lol

[mchookem 16765]

didn't like 2/3 of them own slaves? i don't know how self-reflective they were back then. i would hope at least some of them felt guilt.

[bad_teammate 13499]

16 minutes ago, mchookem said:

didn't like 2/3 of them own slaves? i don't know how self-reflective they were back then. i would hope at least some of them felt guilt.

Perhaps you don't, but surely a history major from Harvard would have even a very basic understanding of the founders.

The morality of slavery was a HUGE issue among the founders both as individuals and in their writings and plans for the nation.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Perhaps you don't, but surely a history major from Harvard would have even a very basic understanding of the founders.

You might think that, but I wouldn't. Harvard creates idiots.

But the majority of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery and worked to eliminate it. If you need evidence for this, read the Declaration of Independence and then look at the laws they passed after forming their government.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Hornius Emeritus 12796]

Was Buttigieg wrong? Wasn't the Constitution primarily written by James Madison, who owned dozens of slaves and who did not free them in his will? Wasn't George Washington, owner of more than 300 slaves, the President of the Constitutional Convention?

Edited December 30, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[henrygandorf 29225]

it was ok as long as you also had sex with them. 

-t. jefferson

[bad_teammate 13499]

Was Buttigieg wrong? Wasn't the Constitution primarily written by James Madison, who owned dozens of slaves and who did not free them in his will? Wasn't George Washington, owner of more than 300 slaves, the President of the Constitutional Convention?

Most supported legal slavery, but to extrapolate that to all of them not knowing slavery was immoral is counter-factual. Multiple were very open about the immorality of slavery. Many others spoke about its morality in rationalizing ways.

I don't check whether all the meat I eat is factory farmed, but I know it is wrong.

I got my wife's specific breed of dog from a breeder, knowing that rescue is the right thing to do.

I use carbon emitting conveniences knowing it's killing the planet.

We all do things that conflict with our moral understanding. Painting the framers as a whole as eager or ignorant slavers is a terrible way to teach kids and is indicative of a simplistic worldview that erases difficult issues and nuance.

And it's just historically false.

[Hornius Emeritus 12796]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Most supported legal slavery, but to extrapolate that to all of them not knowing slavery was immoral is counter-factual. Multiple were very open about the immorality of slavery. Many others spoke about its morality in rationalizing ways.

 

 

You may very well be right. I'm too lazy to look it up, but Buttigieig's point was restricted to the writers of the Constitution, not "all of them"  or, as Texas Hammer said, "the founding fathers."   Who wrote the Constitution and what did they feel re: the morality of slavery?  Those are the only persons whose views we should be considering.  I know that Madison wrote most of it and he owned dozens of slaves.  

Edited December 30, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[Js1 87175]

 

[bad_teammate 13499]

Who wrote the Constitution and what did they feel re: the morality of slavery?  Those are the only persons whose views we should be considering.  I know that Madison wrote most of it and he owned dozens of slaves.  

How do you think the Constitution was written?

There was a convention of many. Madison took notes and used those notes to create the document.

Looking at Madison's notes on the 3/5ths discussion makes it clear than moral neutrality to slavery and moral approval of slavery were the minority positions.

Moral opposition was far more common than moral approval. It isn't unclear at all.

[Guest Lobo]

The United States had legalized slavery for less than 90 years.  There were slaves that were born the year they signed the Declaration of Independence and lived long enough to see the abolition of all slavery in every corner of the Republic. 9 American States abolished slavery within 30 years of the nation's founding.  And we fought our costliest war, and we've been in more than our fair share, over the issue of slavery.  

The British Empire engaged in slavery on her Island as well as dozens of colonies abroad, including the North American continent, for well over 300 years.  Finally abolishing it completely in 1833, just one generation before the United States did.  Dozens of Kingdoms, Empires, and "Nation-States" on 5 continents engaged in legalized slavery for multiple centuries, far longer than the United States.  "Progressive"  countries like Brazil, Turkey, Spain, Morocco, Bahrain, Egypt, Niger, and Kuwait do not legally abolish slavery in every corner of their reach for several decades after the United States.  We had it far shorter than most, and abolished it far earlier than most, and did it at a cost worse than any other country. 

So what makes us different?  Why is it called our 'Original Sin' even though we learned it by watching Daddy Britain?  Because it's baked into our founding.  All other world powers were around for awhile, then adopted slavery as they expanded, and then got enlightened and dropped it.  Or it was always with them and they simply pointed to something in their sacred scriptures that said it was totally cool (looking at you Yemen and Saudi Arabia, last to abolish on this planet).  But we are founded on lands where it's already happening, we decide how to treat the slaves in the founding of our Republic (hint, they won't be allowed to participate and it gets worse) in our codifying documents, and we even divy up pockets where certain degrees of slaveowning can occur all the way down to no slaves at all under any arrangement.  Kings and Non-Secular Leaders and the like, they just sort of administratively decree this rule about slaves and that rule about slaves.  And it frequently takes place far away from the ruling centers (outta sight, outta mind).  Ours is in our face, we were the colony.  It's all around us, and the rules come from us (our elected officials, anyway).  There's nothing for people to hind behind like the elites of other empires could.  If you're an adult white male, it's on you that slavery exists in the new U.S.A.  We were, and are, all to blame for it.  
 

We carry a heavier burden than other countries because we went first.  We codified slavery into the very genesis of the Nation.  We were that guy at the party that says out loud what everybody else was thinking.  We place all this "enlightened, hip cat" stuff into the Declaration and the Constitution, and then just completely gloss over what we knew to be immoral and inhumane-slavery.  If we would have stayed British colonies, there's a very good chance slavery in North America (and far beyond) lasts well into the 20th century because no way the Crown condones a large-scale war covering half the colonies which would certainly disrupt outputs, tax base, and just healthy males of all colors to keep the society moving ahead.  

Of course we knew better.  And so did Mayor Pete.  History, Pete.  C'mon man, this is supposed to be your thing.    

[Js1 87175]

TLDR 

the original sin was giving you the ability to type 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete/Tulsi 2020 because they served in the military and that alone qualifies them to be President of the United States. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12796]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

How do you think the Constitution was written?

There was a convention of many. Madison took notes and used those notes to create the document.

Looking at Madison's notes on the 3/5ths discussion makes it clear than moral neutrality to slavery and moral approval of slavery were the minority positions.

Moral opposition was far more common than moral approval. It isn't unclear at all.

 

I don't see much evidence in that link that moral approval of slavery was the minority position. In fact, from that link, it does not appear that many considered of the assembled the question on moral grounds whatsoever. 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

TLDR 

the original sin was giving you the ability to type 

Great burn dude. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

Under the Articles of Confederation, which only lasted eight yers, they banned importation of slaves. So immediately after the country was formed, a majority started the process of dismantling the institution.

Quote

 Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antislavery societies.

John Jay was a large slave owner. Owning of slaves does not mean you support slavery, it meant you were wealthy, which many of them were. George Washington owned slaves, but freed them all on his death.

John Quincy Adams:

Quote

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 

 

I heard someone say a while back that like 17 of the 39 signers were supporters but I don't remember the source. In any case, it was clear that the majority saw it as a moral abomination and upon creating the country, immediately went about the process of gradually ending it, which culminated in a war that killed 650,000 people.

Madison owned slaves and didn't free them. Here are some Madison quotes.

Quote

''We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.''

''American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country.''

''Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!''

Natural Law exists across time and cultures and the Founders knew this. It's a pity so many are interested in throwing away their intellectual traditions. It's why Harvard et al produce mainly idiots.

[bad_teammate 13499]

45 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I don't see much evidence in that link that moral approval of slavery was the minority position. In fact, from that link, it does not appear that many considered of the assembled the question on moral grounds whatsoever. 

Where is it argued in there that slavery is a moral good?

George Mason, founder and inheritor of 300+ slaves, refers to the slave trade as "this infernal trafic" and refers to "The evil of having slaves."

It's all over the document. I admit that it's not easy to read as it is was written in the 18th century, but I have no idea how someone could read through those notes of the actual founders discussing the 3/5th compromise and get the idea that there was no moral conflict regarding slavery. It is EVERYWHERE.

Madison's summary of Hugh Williamson's view is apt:
Mr. Williamson said that both in opinion & practice he was, against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S--C & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union--

We already have a dumb president from the Ivies. We don't need another.

[wildcat09 29578]

 

[Pancho 46283]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Torbush.

[henrygandorf 29225]

saying that the framers of the constitution knew they didn't have all the answers, so they had a system for updating and correcting it (and using slavery and civil rights as examples) was said to please the audience he was speaking to?

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20911]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

That doesn't make him any different from any other politician. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. It's salesmanship.  Maybe Pete would phrase it differently today by modifying it with "MANY  of the writers of the constitution"  or whatever, but this bullshit "gotcha" politics shit from the Democrats is fucking stupid. Nobody is going to pass a morality purity test with 100% flying colors. You all are worried about arcane bullshit when the world's biggest liar lives in the White House.  Joe Biden's vote to allow President Bush to declare war on Iraq is INFINITELY more consequential than a verbal gaffe by Pete Buttigieg.  I mean, that vote allowed for the trillions of dollars in misspent monies and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.   And yet Biden said ---- TWICE ---- that he was against that war from the moment it began.  But he was at the forefront of that vote, spoke to the press, was quoted many times, and not once before the invasion did he express opposition to it.   It was only the greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

That doesn't make him any different from any other politician. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. It's salesmanship.  Maybe Pete would phrase it differently today by modifying it with "MANY  of the writers of the constitution"  or whatever, but this bullshit "gotcha" politics shit from the Democrats is fucking stupid. Nobody is going to pass a morality purity test with 100% flying colors. You all are worried about arcane bullshit when the world's biggest liar lives in the White House.  Joe Biden's vote to allow President Bush to declare war on Iraq is INFINITELY more consequential than a verbal gaffe by Pete Buttigieg.  I mean, that vote allowed for the trillions of dollars in misspent monies and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.   And yet Biden said ---- TWICE ---- that he was against that war from the moment it began.  But he was at the forefront of that vote, spoke to the press, was quoted many times, and not once before the invasion did he express opposition to it.   It was only the greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy. 

The Twitter rabble is far more threatened by Pete than Joe, despite Joe's chances at winning being expontentially higher. It's really weird. I wonder what they're threatened by.

[mchookem 16765]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

saying that the framers of the constitution knew they didn't have all the answers, so they had a system for updating and correcting it (and using slavery and civil rights as examples) was said to please the audience he was speaking to?

 

yeeaah... this is the kind of thing i just can't get worked up about. it seems trivial considering there are bigger fish to fry and all that.

but everybody has their own threshold for what is tolerable. this doesn't even move the needle for me. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

The Twitter rabble is far more threatened by Pete than Joe, despite Joe's chances at winning being expontentially higher. It's really weird. I wonder what they're threatened by.

the constant attacks from the woke twitter echo chamber are more about likes, retweets, and internet high-fives from each other than actual substance.  the fact that almost none of it finds its way to actual news platforms should tell you everything you need to know.  shit, even the wine-cave nonsense found its way to the debate and ended up backfiring pretty spectacularly.

twitter is not real life.  i learned that on twitter.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13725]

Seems like this is a fair amount of false outrage about this slavery topic.

Personally I don’t buy that slave owners were opposed to slavery. Maybe they told themselves that it was a necessary evil but that comes across as a weak argument. If they were opposed enough they could have at least not personally participated. And I never got the heroic story about Washington freeing his slaves upon his death. Why wait? Or I guess that he didn’t mind getting their benefit of their labor while alive but didn’t want to see them mistreated by other owners later.  I guess there is a small moral victory in there. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Seems like this is a fair amount of false outrage about this slavery topic.
Personally I don’t buy that slave owners were opposed to slavery. Maybe they told themselves that it was a necessary evil but that comes across as a weak argument. If they were opposed enough they could have at least not personally participated. And I never got the heroic story about Washington freeing his slaves upon his death. Why wait? Or I guess that he didn’t mind getting their benefit of their labor while alive but didn’t want to see them mistreated by other owners later.  I guess there is a small moral victory in there. 

You can't be anti slavery and own slaves. That whole thing was a ridiculously childish argument by a few people here. 1234.

[henrygandorf 29225]

also it's a little odd to say "the framers obviously knew slavery was wrong but just didn't say so in the constitution".  as great as the framers were, i doubt they were sharp enough to see they could just kick the can for 80 years or so and everything would "work out".

in the clip, he's clearly saying (in a somewhat complimentary way) that they knew things would need amending, and they had the foresight to include that ability.

the faux outrage is the least surprising thing happening here. 

[bad_teammate 13499]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

You can't be anti slavery and own slaves.

I read a few months ago that Pete is a dumb guy's idea of what a smart guy is (like Trump is a poor guy's idea of what a rich guy is). The reasoning in the last few posts in this thread validate that.

I posted a link to the notes from the Constitutional convention that shows slave-owning founders calling slavery "evil" and "infernal". This is primary source documentation of something that should be obvious for anyone with a moral understanding of the world more advanced than a toddler, but escapes the smartest good boy in the room and his loyal former/current Republican fanbase.

The man who does not realize his hypocrisy is simply too stupid or self-deluded to understand his own actions and decisions.

 

[bad_teammate 13499]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

also it's a little odd to say "the framers obviously knew slavery was wrong but just didn't say so in the constitution".  as great as the framers were, i doubt they were sharp enough to see they could just kick the can for 80 years or so and everything would "work out".

in the clip, he's clearly saying (in a somewhat complimentary way) that they knew things would need amending, and they had the foresight to include that ability.

the faux outrage is the least surprising thing happening here. 

Oh my fucking god that is literally what they are saying over and fucking OVER again in the primary source documentation.

It's there over and over, but here's one excerpt...

Mr. Baldwin had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a Genl Governmt to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for every thing--that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage--& that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of which he said was a respectable class of people, who carryed their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I read a few months ago that Pete is a dumb guy's idea of what a smart guy is (like Trump is a poor guy's idea of what a rich guy is). The reasoning in the last few posts in this thread validate that.

I posted a link to the notes from the Constitutional convention that shows slave-owning founders calling slavery "evil" and "infernal". This is primary source documentation of something that should be obvious for anyone with a moral understanding of the world more advanced than a toddler, but escapes the smartest good boy in the room and his loyal former/current Republican fanbase.

The man who does not realize his hypocrisy is simply too stupid or self-deluded to understand his own actions and decisions.

 

That's a new take I haven't seen yet. Pretty sure Pete is smart as shit no matter how you slice it. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh my fucking god that is literally what they are saying over and fucking OVER again in the primary source documentation.

It's there over and over, but here's one excerpt...

Mr. Baldwin had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a Genl Governmt to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for every thing--that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage--& that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of which he said was a respectable class of people, who carryed their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

so you're saying they had the foresight to abridge and amend, even for stuff in there that they knew was wrong and would likely be abridged and amended later?

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

That's a new take I haven't seen yet. Pretty sure Pete is smart as shit no matter how you slice it. 

You should put him on ignore. We're talking about an old  man who, for decades, participated in predatory capitalism and an industry which epitomizes pure greed and selfishness (oil and gas), made his money, and retired to a lilly white gated community. Now he's comfortably behind his gates whose sole purpose is to keep his upper class existence separate and safe from the very working class that he loves to be a champion of, now that he's no longer exploiting them for personal gain and raping our planet.

Of course he's baffled by the statement "you can't be anti-slavery and own slaves". He's perfectly unashamed of that kind of hypocrisy. Hell, he might not even be aware of it.

If bad_teammate were a founding father, he'd be the guy who sailed over here with 80 slaves and walked around telling poor farmers that they were pieces of shit for owning two slaves. It's what he is. 

I'm enjoying this board immensely more with him ignored, even if he does pop up in replies from time to time.

Edited December 30, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13499]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so you're saying they had the foresight to abridge and amend, even for stuff in there that they knew was wrong and would likely be abridged and amended later?

Yes. We don't even have to speculate. We can read it in the words I've already posted.

To the extent that the founders expressed negative or positive moral views of slavery, the majority of their moral expressions were AGAINST slavery. This is not only a matter of basic historical record, it's common sense.

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

You should put him on ignore. We're talking about an old  man who participated in predatory capitalism and an industry which epitomizes pure greed and selfishness (oil and gas), made his money, and retired to a lilly white gated community. Now he's comfortably behind his gates whose sole purpose is to keep his upper class existence separate and safe from the very working class that he loves to be a champion of, now that he's no longer exploiting them for personal gain and raping our planet.

Who says I'm no longer doing it?

I would love for a fully nationalized energy sector to destroy my company and livelihood. I would love to pay more in taxes. 

Quote

Of course he's baffled by the statement "you can't be anti-slavery and own slaves". He's perfectly unashamed of that kind of hypocrisy. Hell, he might not even be aware of it.

Brad has me on ignore because he sucks at arguing and is tired of being embarrassed constantly, and this is a key example.

- We all know factory farming is wrong, but none of us ask at the restaurant if the fajitas are locally sourced and free range before eating.
- We all know climate change is real, but if you give us a chance to fly in a G6 we'll hop right in.
- We all know the porn industry is rife with abuse and sex trafficking, but even the strongest of us will sneak a few peeks.
- We all know that college football destroys the brains of young men, but we're going to watch it and cheer.

And on and on and on and on. The moral calculus of living in the world is complex. If Brad thinks he walks through life without hypocrisies then he's just a fucking idiot or a liar.

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes. We don't even have to speculate. We can read it in the words I've already posted.

cool.  this is what pete said.  glad we agree.

[bad_teammate 13499]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

cool.  this is what pete said.  glad we agree.

That's all Pete said?

lol you make Hugo look like a critical and hesitant advocate for Liz

[Lagunamadre 1975]

26 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You should put him on ignore. We're talking about an old  man who, for decades, participated in predatory capitalism and an industry which epitomizes pure greed and selfishness (oil and gas), made his money, and retired to a lilly white gated community. Now he's comfortably behind his gates whose sole purpose is to keep his upper class existence separate and safe from the very working class that he loves to be a champion of, now that he's no longer exploiting them for personal gain and raping our planet.

Of course he's baffled by the statement "you can't be anti-slavery and own slaves". He's perfectly unashamed of that kind of hypocrisy. Hell, he might not even be aware of it.

If bad_teammate were a founding father, he'd be the guy who sailed over here with 80 slaves and walked around telling poor farmers that they were pieces of shit for owning two slaves. It's what he is. 

I'm enjoying this board immensely more with him ignored, even if he does pop up in replies from time to time.

I'm not sure bad-teammate was saying Pete isn't smart, he was just repeating what he had seen people espousing on the interwebs, not sure if he had a take on it either way. 

Also, I'm in the O&G business, so I can't really pass judgement in that regard. 

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

27 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You should put him on ignore. We're talking about an old  man who, for decades, participated in predatory capitalism and an industry which epitomizes pure greed and selfishness (oil and gas), made his money, and retired to a lilly white gated community. Now he's comfortably behind his gates whose sole purpose is to keep his upper class existence separate and safe from the very working class that he loves to be a champion of, now that he's no longer exploiting them for personal gain and raping our planet.

Of course he's baffled by the statement "you can't be anti-slavery and own slaves". He's perfectly unashamed of that kind of hypocrisy. Hell, he might not even be aware of it.

If bad_teammate were a founding father, he'd be the guy who sailed over here with 80 slaves and walked around telling poor farmers that they were pieces of shit for owning two slaves. It's what he is. 

I'm enjoying this board immensely more with him ignored, even if he does pop up in replies from time to time.

Wait, is this true?  I thought he grew up a poor brown fuck like myself?  Full disclosure, I knew he was white, but didn't guess any of that stuff you mentioned was true of his background.  It sure as shit changes how I see all his pontification.

[henrygandorf 29225]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I'm not sure bad-teammate was saying Pete isn't smart, he was just repeating what he had seen people espousing on the interwebs, not sure if he had a take on it either way. 

he read it a while back (in his own journal).

and yes, he definitely has a take on it.  maybe you're new here.

[henrygandorf 29225]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's all Pete said?

that was the point of what he was saying.  they had the wherewithal to know there were things they didn't know.

i understand that twitter points are only won by taking an absurd angle that likely includes a few jumps in logic and absolutely zero context, but i try to keep it simple around here.

 

[bad_teammate 13499]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

that was the point of what he was saying.  they had the wherewithal to know there were things they didn't know.

i understand that twitter points are only won by taking an absurd angle that likely includes a few jumps in logic and absolutely zero context, but i try to keep it simple around here.

You literally sound like a Trump voter apologizing for Donald's verbal diarrhea.

#sad